MP48-04 PERSPECTIVES OF SOCIETY OF WOMEN IN UROLOGY MEMBERS TOWARD DOBBS V. JACKSON WOMEN′S HEALTH ORGANIZATION

Abstract

You have accessJournal of UrologyCME1 Apr 2023MP48-04 PERSPECTIVES OF SOCIETY OF WOMEN IN UROLOGY MEMBERS TOWARD DOBBS V. JACKSON WOMEN′S HEALTH ORGANIZATION Chloe E. Peters, Jenney Lee, Sarah K. Holt, Erika M. Wolff, John L. Gore, and Casey A. Seideman Chloe E. PetersChloe E. Peters More articles by this author , Jenney LeeJenney Lee More articles by this author , Sarah K. HoltSarah K. Holt More articles by this author , Erika M. WolffErika M. Wolff More articles by this author , John L. GoreJohn L. Gore More articles by this author , and Casey A. SeidemanCasey A. Seideman More articles by this author View All Author Informationhttps://doi.org/10.1097/JU.0000000000003294.04AboutPDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints ShareFacebookLinked InTwitterEmail Abstract INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVE: The 2022 US Supreme court ruling Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization stated that the US Constitution does not guarantee the right to abortion. Many states have subsequently passed abortion restrictions, including total abortion bans. We surveyed members of the Society of Women in Urology (SWIU) to understand attitudes toward the Dobbs ruling and its impact on professional decision-making. We analyzed participants’ free text responses in which they offered broader perspectives on the impact of the ruling. METHODS: An IRB-approved REDCap survey was distributed to SWIU members via list-serve email and social media on 9/2/22. Participants were medical students, urology residents/fellows, and practicing/retired urologists over age 18. Responses were anonymous and collected in aggregate. Thematic mapping was done for all qualitative responses and themes were characterized with descriptive statistics. RESULTS: 220/329 (66.8%) respondents provided 478 free-text comments. 10/220 (4.5%) commenters wrote statements in support of the Dobbs decision. Other themes elicited included: 1) Personal impacts, including fear for themselves/others and desire to move away from or avoid living in states with anti-abortion laws, 2) Professional impacts, such as concerns about hiring female urologists in anti-abortion states, government interference in the patient-provider relationship, criminalization of healthcare providers, and effect on urologic care such as counseling for prenatal abnormalities, andrology/infertility, and vasectomies, 3) Desire for advocacy, including increased support from the AUA and programs/employers, 4) Desire for improved parental leave policies and better reproductive healthcare access for women in urology, and 5) Demoralization of the workforce. Sample comments are highlighted in the Table. CONCLUSIONS: SWIU members shared perspectives that the Dobbs ruling will impact the urology workforce and may impact urology practice in states with more restrictive abortion laws. Many SWIU members may avoid working in anti-abortion states, which could reduce access to urologic care. There is a strong desire for increased advocacy in support of reproductive rights, improved parental leave, and policies to support access to reproductive care for urology trainees. Source of Funding: None © 2023 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.FiguresReferencesRelatedDetails Volume 209Issue Supplement 4April 2023Page: e655 Advertisement Copyright & Permissions© 2023 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.MetricsAuthor Information Chloe E. Peters More articles by this author Jenney Lee More articles by this author Sarah K. Holt More articles by this author Erika M. Wolff More articles by this author John L. Gore More articles by this author Casey A. Seideman More articles by this author Expand All Advertisement PDF downloadLoading ...